Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Epistemology
My conception of ultimate truth, then, is defined by the Everything. The Everything and
ultimate truth are the same thing in my opinion. It is also where the subjective and objective
converge because you cannot separate the finite subjective experiences within the context of
the Everything from the Everything itself. This is why I am not opposed to being identified as a
pantheist, if you were to construct God as being synonymous with ultimate truth. Whether God
is ‘benevolent’ or not becomes irrelevant (I suppose you could also call me a ‘pandeist’ if you
want *Ba Dum Tsss*) because of my metaphysics, since the truth of it being ‘is’ or ‘isn’t’ is
undermined by it being unknowable. This can be said, theoretically, for anything ‘spiritual’
because, once it becomes known, it would no longer really be ‘spiritual’ as far as I’m concerned.
Spiritualism becomes a non-literal means to describe the abyss of non-comprehension.
The function of spiritualism with respect to truth can be related, again, to the Truth of
Wisdom. I will define the Truth of Wisdom more specifically, by calling it a means of generating
greater emotional reconciliation with the unknowability of the Everything. This is where finding
the balance between the various dichotomic constructions we discussed over the quarter (such
as order vs. chaos, left brain vs. right brain, dove vs. serpent) comes into play. The myths that
enable us to actualize the Truth of Wisdom, to find the highest form of emotional balance
within our framework of an inherently uncertain reality, become necessary in order to produce
judgements that will maximize acceptance of ourselves and reality.
By saying that, I am assuming that complete emotional balance is defined by absolute
acceptance; the actualization of complete contentment with yourself within the context of the
greater reality of non-experience, which reconciles you’re finite experience with the Everything.
I define this as the actualization of Transcendent Love, which is, obviously, not really
actualizable, but, rather, an ideal to strive towards. To actually actualize Transcendent Love
would be akin to experiencing death while living (or conceptualizing the Everything within your
finite, interpretive experience). Ultimate emotional truth, in other words, is not so different
from ultimate scientific (or ‘objective’) truth, in that its realization is necessarily limited by our
conscious experience.
This is what makes experienced life what it is; it is defined more by what it is not than
what it is. It is through greater emotional balance that a greater capacity of knowing is achieved
because it limits emotional biases that cloud ‘objective’ reasoning, while also leaving people
open to their own emotional judgements. As a greater level of self-acceptance is actualized,
moment to moment emotional judgements are greater understood and accepted as well. The
paradox of striving towards Transcendent Love is that, by trying to transcend judgement
through complete acceptance of the is, you wind up having a greater capacity to confidently
accept the emotional judgements you do inevitably make. You’re actions, in other words, come
to define the you of the moment less and less as you get closer to Transcendent Love (I suppose
you could call me an Inverse-Existentialist).
It is rigidity in belief that limits a given person’s capacity to discern truth and judge
wisely, thus my pervading endorsement for openness. Perhaps it’s naïve, but I believe true
openness is the guide to achieving balance and navigating the Truth of Wisdom. This means
embracing the invariable uncertainty of ultimate truth within your finite experience and
trusting your emotional judgements to guide your moment to moment actions, while also being
skeptical of the “truth” of that judgement. It requires introspective analysis to understand why
your judgement manifested the way it did and then to apply the new understandings brought
to you by being the product of a new moment to see if you still hold the previous action as
‘true’.
These judgements are inherently emotional ones, which is why, with respect to the
Truth of Wisdom, the action itself supersedes the ‘objective’, scientific cause of the action,
while, with scientific truth, the opposite is true. Ultimately, in the space of ultimate truth (the
Everything), the two forms of truth converge, but, from our finite perspective, it becomes a
handy practical way of discerning their differences. Scientific understanding becomes a tool for
the Truth of Wisdom, a tool for guiding our judgements and actions.
Ethics
Our ethics are defined by our judgements, which makes them intertwined with our
cultural (and really existential) context.
http://faculty.washington.edu/jwhelan/Disenchantment%20Site/Documents/Assignments/Fina
l%20Paper%20Prompt.pdf